GakuseiDon

It's right there, in the thread title. :huh:

I gave my answer: they should be evaluated in the same way as non-supernatural claims, taking bias, etc, into account. For the loaves and fish miracle, we no longer have evidence that could reasonably verify that it happened.

I'm only responding to the questions that are on-topic. Questions on what non-human beings should be doing with their time shouldn't be taken into consideration when examining religious texts, at least in my opinion. I know you disagree.

In the absence of a time-machine, we can't verify whether the story is true. Just as we can't verify that Jesus preached a sermon on the Mount. We can't verify that Jesus existed at all.

Sounds reasonable. Based on that, would you agree that it is impossible for us to verify supernatural claims in all religious books? If not, how can we verify such claims? (Note that the thread title uses "we". Please don't bring non-human beings into your answer, unless you are a non-human being.)

Johnny Skeptic

I haven't read any religious books except for the Bible. If you mean the Bible, my answer is "yes." However, even if I were to agree for the sake of argument that Jesus rose from the dead, in my opionion, that alone would not be sufficient grounds on its own for a person to become a Christian. All that rising from the dead has to do with is power, not character.

Nor can you verify that you are not an alien, and even that you exist. For all you know, you might exist only in an alien's dream.
The main issue is not VERIFY. The main issue is as I said in a previous post "REASONABLY VERIFY." Surely there is more reasonably verifiable evidence that Jesus existed than there is that the story of the loaves and fishes is true. I do not doubt that that is the position of the majority of Bible scholars. Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that Jesus preached it.

GakuseiDon

Great! QED.

Then, how can we reasonably verify a supernatural claim in a religious text? Is this possible, IYO?

Johnny Skeptic

You are quite right that I disagree. I believe that the issue of intent is very important when examining any kinds of texts, religious or otherwise. If God actually killed all of the firstborn males in Egypt, his intent is of paramount importance. If God is like your version of God, and he promotes "love your neighbor" exclusively by means of spiritual/emotional evidence, his intent is of paramount importance. If the intent/motives of a possible God are not known, it would be impossible for anyone to realiably evaluate his character. If an alien showed up on earth, dropped a bomb on New York City, killed millions of people, and immediately left the earth, what his intent/motives are would be of paramount importance. Maybe a more powerful alien told him that if he did not blow kill millions of people in New York City, he would destroy his entire home planet and all 25 billion inhabitants. In such a case, the alien's actions would be more understandable, possibly even justifiable. Do you now understand how important intent is? In court trials, reasonably establishing intent is very important. It is often difficult to convict a person of a crime if intent cannot be reasonably established. For instance, it would not make much sense for Donald Trump to steal a quarter from someone even if the evidence was pretty good that he did, right? If a theist is going to promote universalism, or a specific religion, he will always have to deal with the intent of whichever version of God he is promoting. It is unreasonable for a theist to promote a God whose motives are not known.

You believe that God (meaning the creator of the universe) is all-powerful, all-knowing, completely good, and completely perfect, right? If so, it is no wonder that you protest whenever I criticize God. It appears that your emotional needs demand such a God.

Johnny Skeptic

What does "QED" mean?

It depends upon the individual claim. The only supernatural claims that I have read are in the Bible. If you have some examples of supernatural claims in other religious books that you would like to discuss, please quote them and I will be happy to discuss them with you. I would never presume to dismiss claims that I have never read. Since I am an agnostic, I would not be surprised if beings exist who are able to do things that humans cannot do. If they do exist, and are moral, I would be quite pleased if they were available to help us with our many needs. Who wouldn't be pleased?

I WOULD be surprised, however, if the fundamentalist Christian or the liberal Christian version of God is trying to promote a specific agenda by means of spiritual/emotional evidence and/or tangible supernatural evidence.

Amaleq13

quod erat demonstrandum

Literally "which was to be demonstrated"

Figuratively "I just proved I'm right"

GakuseiDon

That's fair enough, depending on the thread. But the problem is that this isn't suggested in the OP. I'm honestly not interested in discussing supernatural claims per se. As I think we've established, and both agreed, it is impossible for us to verify supernatural claims in religious texts. So that answers the OP. All we can do is examine the texts to see what the authors believed -- I'd like to discuss the OP from that secular perspective, rather than what God should be doing. Threads on BCH usually have a secular perspective, and that's why I like reading this forum in the first place. But I don't think you had any intention of keeping God out of this. It would be nice if you were up-front about that.

I'm a universalist, but I don't promote it or God. I think God can take care of Himself. I do respond to threads about God in the GRD forum, though I'm not trying to promote God as such, just answering questions.

You can criticize God all you like, as far as I'm concerned. Just please don't derail other people's threads in order to do it.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, I said the Bible, not all religous texts, although I assume that my answer would be the same for them too.

I know that I get off-topic a lot at this forum, but it is difficult for me to limit my discussions to what people believed. Some people believe that the earth is flat, and that men have not landed on the moon. The main issue for me is not what people like that believe, but whether or not what they believe is true. Even if we knew what everyone in ancient times believed, where would that leave us today? Would we be better able to determine what the truth is? Is this forum dedicated solely to historical academic evaluations at the expense of the search for the truth?

You debate only for entertainment, right?

Well, if that is what your position really is, that is fine, but I suspect that it isn't. At the GRD Forum, you criticized me in my own thread, and put me on your ignore list even though I was polite to you. And, you got a moderator's warning for poor conduct. At the GRD Forum you have stated infactically on a number of occasions that you oppose me saying that God ought to show up and demonstrate his power. You really got your dander up when I did that at the GRD Forum, but now you pretend that you do not mind if I do not derail other people's threads.

GakuseiDon

Just be up-front about what you want to cover in the OP of your own threads, or stick to the OP in other people's threads, and you'll do fine.

True, you've always been polite, so that should be noted.

That's all from me on this thread. Thanks.

Johnny Skeptic

Does anyone believe that there is better evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River?

Other than the Resurrection, which supernatural events in the New Testament are best attested to?